Talk:Treaty battleship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in next few days. Zawed (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Zawed, Just so you know, I will be completely offline from 21 June to 21 July, so, while you can comment then, I will not be able to respond for that time Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• There shouldn't be a need for a cite in the lead if everything has been been cited in the body. It seems that the term "Treaty battleship" isn't really used in the main body which seems odd given that it is the title for the article.
• Perhaps the second paragraph should refer to the Washington Treaty as the first of the naval treaties

Background

• The first sentence includes a quote; although there is only one word after the end of the quote to complete the sentence, the quote really could be cited. I assume it is Addington that is the source of the quote. Perhaps restructure the sentence so it finishes with the quote.
• You refer to World War I here but the Great War in the lead - use one or the other for consistency.

Treaties

• The first paragraph is just one long sentence. Suggest breaking it down a little. Doing so may also help with the parsing issue I had with "British ending opposition to including the..." Perhaps "withdrawing its opposition to the inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine"?

Washington Naval Treaty

• "Chapter II, part 2, detailed...": should the part 2 be capitalised (like Part 3, Section II which appears later in this part of the article)?

Geneva Naval Conferences

• Given the main purpose of these conferences seemed to be around establishing limits for cruisers etc..., what were the proposals in this regard? I ask since a proposal for battleships is mentioned.
  • All I felt merited inclusiton was about the British proposal, particularly as this article follows treaty battleships. I can certainly add stuff about cruisers if you want. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Good point, I hadn't considered that. Putting material about cruisers would be a bit off topic so won't insist on it. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Also, this section appears to only discuss the first conference. What about the second? Perhaps one or two sentence summary for this section.
• "The Conference ended"; plural since you use plural in the heading

London Treaties

• This section starts off with "These limits were reiterated by the London Naval Treaty of 1930..."; what limits? Those not reached in Geneva or existing limits? (the use of reiterated suggests the latter).
• The second treaty is linked but not the first.
• Were the treaties ratified?

Battleships

• Perhaps mention the term "Treaty battleship" here?
  • The problem over use of the term (which you also mentioned earlier) is that very few ships were built that can properly be called 'treaty battleships', and the term essentially applies to the lack of battleships, making it hard to use. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• I feel this section would work better if the first sentence was deleted - the ships appear to be discussed later anyway. I also note that Hood appears to have been commissioned prior to the Washington Treaty so why the exception? I can understand the others as briefly checking them they had to enter service.
  • If you note later "The Royal Navy scrapped or stopped construction on sixteen ships as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty. " -- I presume Hood would have been scrapped... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• "(the American and Japanese ships having been converted)"; converted from what to what? Note I think it isn't necessary to have this as you discuss the ships in the following paragraph.
• "The treaty limitations..." are still referring to the Washington treaty or all of them (see next comment)?
• "The treaties also inhibited development ..." which treaties or all of them?
• Make it explicit that Nelson and Rodney are treaty battleships

Bibliography

• Should the treaties be here rather than being linked directly from the references?
  • I couldn't figure out how to do that and cite specific sections... Let me know if you think there's a good way to do it Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Honed listed but not actually cited
• It looks like you have grouped sources by books and websites? If not then the last 7 are out of order. If yes, perhaps use headings to differentiate them.
  • fixed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander & Ahlberg, Lars is out of order, and needs an access date.
  • fixed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• There are two references for Milestones, but the short text for the references don't reflect this.
  • the second milestone is now named "State Department MilestonesB" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff

• Image tags look fine.
• No dab links
• External links check out OK

Review comments done, will check back in a few days. Perchance you don't get time to respond in light of being offline for a month as you mentioned above, I will place this on hold. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Zawed, fixed all (I think) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Eddie891: this is looking pretty good now and I have made a few extra tweaks. I noticed one thing I missed first time round in the battleships section. The sentence: "Upon the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, Amagi and Akagi were abandoned and Kaga and Akagi were converted to 30,000-ton aircraft carriers." Akagi is mentioned twice here and there is no context for Amagi (it could be provided by a change along the lines of "Upon the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, the planned battlecruisers Amagi and XXXX (the ship that this is supposed to refer to) were abandoned and while Kaga and Akagi, still to be completed, were converted to 30,000-ton aircraft carriers." (or something similar and it will depend on what XXXX should be. Once this has been sorted, this should be good to go. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Zawed, I think I got it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks all good to go now. I consider the article is well written, covers the subject to a reasonable level with sourcing, and is appropriately illustrated. Passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)